Find a field in Minecraft mappings (live)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it is a 'convenience wrapper' without disclosing behavioral traits such as return format, pagination behavior, case sensitivity, or error handling. This is insufficient for an agent to predict tool execution.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences only, no fluff, and the first sentence immediately conveys the purpose. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description lacks details about the return structure, pagination (limit parameter exists but no mention of how results are returned), and error conditions. While the tool is a simple wrapper, more context would help, especially given the lack of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already covers 75%+ of parameters with descriptions (all four have descriptions). The description adds value by clarifying that the query refers to a field name and that the tool filters to fields. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a convenience wrapper over mc_mappings_search filtered to fields, and explicitly identifies it as the only way to query field names. This distinguishes it from siblings like mc_lookup_class and mc_mappings_search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says it is the only way to ask 'what's the field name for X in <version>?' because curated knowledge tables don't track fields. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies alternatives (other lookup or search tools).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.